Mainstream media in the US seems to be more interested in the character of the leaker than in the content of the leak.
Listening Post Last Modified: 25 Jun 2013 07:46
Before Edward Snowden blew the whistle on the NSA’s extensive surveillance programmes on American citizens, he travelled to Hong Kong to escape the reach of the United States' justice system.
Perhaps he was mindful of the fate of Bradley Manning, who faces life in prison for releasing thousands of classified documents to Wikileaks. But while Snowden may have outrun the long arm of the law, he could not avoid trial by media.
Snowden has been described as a "weasel", a "narcissist" and a "punk" - not by US politicians or officials but by the journalists and newscasters leading the debate over his actions. And the discussion in the mainstream media seems more focused on Snowden’s pole-dancing girlfriend and high school record than on one of the most comprehensive telephone and online surveillance programmes in human history.
It raises the question: Why focus on the character of the leaker and not the content of the leak? Is the media once again, shooting the messenger?
This week’s News Divide takes US journalism to task over its treatment of Edward Snowden and those who dare to leak government secrets to the press. We interviewed former whistleblower Thomas Drake, who revealed classified information on NSA surveillance in 2010; Jesselyn Radack, from the Government Accountability Project; and reporters Hamilton Nolan of Gawker; and Dana Priest from the Washington Post.
On our Newsbytes this week: A daily newspaper in Turkey has joined Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan in his war of words against foreign media outlets; the continuing standoff at the Ecuadorean embassy in London over the legal status of Julian Assange; and the Greek government’s plan to shut down the country’s state-owned broadcaster that has been thwarted by a court ruling.
For our feature we return to a problem faced by journalists every day: the dos and don’ts of terminology; the kind of language to use or avoid when dealing with controversial topics. This year, the world’s largest news agency, the Associated Press, has made significant changes to its stylebook – changes that influence the way the media talks about troublesome topics. The Listening Post’s Marcela Pizarro takes a look at terminology in the news and the power behind words.
Lastly, if our report on Edward Snowden has left you feeling a little exposed, don’t worry – watch our web video of the week and let "Snuggly" soothe you back to security. It is Mark Fiore’s cuddly take on NSA surveillance. Privacy? Who needs it? In the end, is it not better to be snuggly and secure?
The whole video was pretty interesting. I liked the segment on terminology. In regards to Snowden, the way the mainstream media is attempting to characterize this guy is absolutely reprehensible. Sneeringly calling him a high school dropout is laughable. Oh yeah, that's obviously a great indicator of a persons character. Then again, we're talking about the mainstream media...
Media corporations in the United States are practically run by the government, and it runs throughout all of them and not just Fox and MSNBC. When I was at the Presidential Debate at Hofstra, I was able to land a spot behind a CBS broadcaster just about to make a live report on campus. I was holding my "Johnson 2012" sign clearly visible next to his left shoulder while a friend of mine was holding her "Ron Paul 2012" sign in the tiny sliver above his right shoulder. A person working for CBS was literally yelling at us to move our signs out of the way, and then one of his handlers corrected him by yelling indirectly at us that there needed to be more Obama and Romney signs in the shot.
This piece just makes it so evident that in a story with basically two major players in a story where one is the government, the media will spend all the time characterizing whoever makes the government looks bad so that you're so busy discussing him that you forget what the hell he actually did. Titles like "Edward Snowden: Hero or Traitor" sets the tone of a basic discussion about a person instead of the actual event or other ideas about government surveillance.
I'm sure it doesn't. The entire communications industry has been in bed with the US government for many years, which is reflected not only in the amounts of dollars spent on lobbying, but also in these programs of mass privacy breaching.
I've been enlightened over time. First realized Fox in pockets of Republicans. MSNBC and CNN in pockets of Democrats. Now realize moreso that no matter what U.S.-based major media coverage you watch, it's spun. Only less popular ones we have to cling onto, from what I've found, are the Associated Press, Guardian, and Reuters. I usually get most of my news from Al Jazeera and BBC. I'm always filtering my sources in and out tho.
Media corporations in the United States are practically run by the government,
rather, there is no distinction anymore: the line between public and private has been blurred and cannot really be said to exist anymore.
cf. the documentary 'century of the self' (posted in the stop being a shithead thread), esp. parts II and IV
a tl;dr of curtis' lengthy documentary:
Spoiler!
This series is about how those in power have used Freud's theories to try and control the dangerous crowd in an age of mass democracy. Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, changed the perception of the human mind and its workings profoundly.
His influence on the 20th century is widely regarded as massive. The documentary describes the impact of Freud's theories on the perception of the human mind, and the ways public relations agencies and politicians have used this during the last 100 years for their engineering of consent. Among the main characters are Freud himself and his nephew Edward Bernays, who was the first to use psychological techniques in advertising. He is often seen as the father of the public relations industry.
Freud's daughter Anna Freud, a pioneer of child psychology, is mentioned in the second part, as well as Wilhelm Reich, one of the main opponents of Freud's theories. Along these general themes, The Century of the Self asks deeper questions about the roots and methods of modern consumerism, representative democracy and its implications. It also questions the modern way we see ourselves, the attitude to fashion and superficiality.
Happiness Machines. Part one documents the story of the relationship between Sigmund Freud and his American nephew, Edward Bernays who invented Public Relations in the 1920s, being the first person to take Freud's ideas to manipulate the masses.
The Engineering of Consent. Part two explores how those in power in post-war America used Freud's ideas about the unconscious mind to try and control the masses. Politicians and planners came to believe Freud's underlying premise that deep within all human beings were dangerous and irrational desires.
There is a Policeman Inside All of Our Heads, He Must Be Destroyed. In the 1960s, a radical group of psychotherapists challenged the influence of Freudian ideas, which lead to the creation of a new political movement that sought to create new people, free of the psychological conformity that had been implanted in people's minds by business and politics.
Eight People Sipping Wine In Kettering. This episode explains how politicians turned to the same techniques used by business in order to read and manipulate the inner desires of the masses. Both New Labor with Tony Blair and the Democrats led by Bill Clinton, used the focus group which had been invented by psychoanalysts in order to regain power.
Quote:
Titles like "Edward Snowden: Hero or Traitor" sets the tone of a basic discussion about a person instead of the actual event or other ideas about government surveillance.
yes. and like our national politics, and like the hypotheses put forward by experts on shows like ancient aliens, and like as happens in the formation of sports fanatics, and like as happens in dialogue RE national security, the question is always framed as a disjunction.
i.e. the choice engenders schizoid thought.
R v D? X v Aliens? Home team v Other? With us v Against us? Hero v Traitor?
(Us v Them? Good v Bad?)
i.e. how group psychology works and i.e. what i mean in talking of our community's destructive habitus-- yes, it's also the practice engaged in by posters like titty (keep begging pm to get on cam to smoke w me v oppose myself to him when he keeps calling me a faggot?) and safari (keep riding pm's dick v ride someone else's who is already seen as opposed to pm when he keeps calling me a faggot?) to this day. as i've mentioned elsewhere, it's also what psychoanalyst melanie klein called the paranoid-schizoid position
Last edited by PM; 12-31-2013 at 10:08 AM.
Reason: added a pic i sketched up real quick to illustrate the idea of how group psychology works
with that in mind it's pretty interesting to read cbs' new article.
a piece of it:
Quote:
Living in Moscow with temporary asylum from the Russian government, Snowden said in an interview with the Washington Post last week that his mission has been accomplished because he was able to spark a debate in the U.S. about the NSA’s surveillance method. “I’ve won,” he said.
Still, his detractors at home say the leaks have done grave harm to the U.S. security apparatus. Former NSA Director Michael Hayden said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that the NSA was “infinitely weaker” because it had revealed the “plumbing” of how America collects intelligence.
“This is the most serious hemorrhaging of American secrets in the history of American espionage,” Hayden said. “What I'm most afraid of is that we will reveal our sources and methods, our tactics, techniques and procedures to people around the world who will the American nation and the American people harm.”
"people around the world who will the American nation and the American people harm" meaning also "the Alien Other", i.e. not us
make sure you check out the love/hate, but mostly hate comments below this framed-as-neutral article.
"Edward Snowden: Shooting the Messenger?"
Linear Mode
